Putin urges Israel-Iran diplomacy, slams NATO and US over Ukraine crisis

ST PETERSBURG, Russia, June 19 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking to senior news agency editors, offered wide-ranging remarks on the conflict between Iran and Israel, NATO and the war in Ukraine.

While refusing to speculate on the potential assassination of Iran’s supreme leader, Putin urged a diplomatic solution that respects both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s security. He also rejected NATO’s military expansion as “pointless,” blamed the West for igniting the Ukraine crisis, and reiterated readiness to meet with US and Ukrainian leaders. Putin insisted Russia remains open to dialogue, but on terms rooted in legal legitimacy.

Putin commented on the following topics.

ASKED ABOUT HIS REACTION IF ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES KILLED IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI:

“If I may, I hope that this will be the most correct answer to your question. I do not even want to discuss this possibility. I do not want to.”

“I hear all this, but I don’t even want to discuss it.”

ON POSSIBLE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN:

“You always need to look at whether the goal is achieved or not when starting something. We see that today in Iran, with all the complexity of the internal political processes taking place there, we are aware of this, and I think there is no point in going deeper, but nevertheless there is a consolidation of society around the country’s political leadership. This happens almost always and everywhere, and Iran is no exception. This is the first thing.

“The second thing that is very important is that everyone is talking about it, I will only repeat what we know and hear from all sides, these underground factories, they exist, nothing has happened to them. And in this regard, it seems to me that it would be right for everyone to look for ways to end hostilities and find ways for all parties to this conflict to come to an agreement with each other in order to ensure both Iran’s interests, on the one hand, for its nuclear activities, including peaceful nuclear activities, of course (I mean peaceful nuclear energy and the peaceful atom in other areas), as well as to ensure the interests of Israel from the point of view of the unconditional security of the Jewish state. This is a delicate issue, and, of course, you need to be very careful here, but in my opinion, in general, such a solution can be found.”

ON SUPPORTING IRAN:

“We are in contact with our Iranian partners on an ongoing basis. Today in contact. I think tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. We continue our relationship.

“And secondly, as I have already said, our specialists are working in Bushehr. 250 people and other business travellers. The total number can reach 600. And we’re not leaving. Isn’t that support? Iran has not asked us for any other support.”

ON HELPING IRAN WITH WEAPONS:

“We once offered our Iranian friends to work in the field of air defence systems, but our partners didn’t show much interest then, and that’s it. As for the agreement you mentioned about the strategic partnership, there are no articles related to the defence sphere… And thirdly, our Iranian friends don’t even ask us to do this. So there’s practically nothing to discuss.”

“Our proposal was to create a system, not separate supplies, but a system. We eventually discussed this once, but the Iranian side didn’t show much interest in it, and it all died down. As for individual deliveries, yes, of course, we carried out these deliveries at one time. This has nothing to do with today’s crisis. It was what is called regular cooperation in the military-technical sphere. And within the framework of international norms.”

ON RELATIONS WITH U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:

Regarding a possible meeting with Mr. Trump, it would certainly be extremely useful. I agree with the President of the United States – it must, of course, be prepared and end with some positive results… We have great respect for his intention to restore relations with Russia in many areas of security and economic activity.

“There are already contacts between our large companies that want to return. This, by and large, inspires such a certain restrained optimism. And I hope that both the President of the United States and his inner circle will see and hear this. And together with business representatives, decisions will be made aimed at restoring Russian-American relations.”

ON NATO:

“We do not consider any NATO rearmament to be a threat to the Russian Federation, because we are self-sufficient in terms of ensuring our security. And we are constantly improving our armed forces and our defensive capabilities. Whatever NATO does, of course, it creates certain threats, but we will stop all these threats that will arise. There is no doubt about it. In this sense, any rearmament and budget increase to 5% of the GDP of NATO countries makes no sense.

“Secondly. Over the centuries, unfortunately, in the West, from time to time, for decades, the question of the threat from Russia has always arisen. It was so convenient for the Western elites to build their internal policy, because on the basis of an imaginary threat from the east, they could extort money from taxpayers and all the time explain their own mistakes in the field of economics by the threat from the east.

“If the NATO countries want to further increase their budget, well, that’s their business. But it won’t do anyone any good. Of course, they will create additional risks. Well, yes, they will. But it’s not our decision. I think this is completely irrational and pointless. And, of course, there are no threats from Russia. It’s just nonsense.”

ON RELATIONS WITH THE WEST:

“It is clear that the current crisis in relations between Russia and Western Europe began in 2014. But the problem is not that Russia annexed Crimea, but that Western countries contributed to the coup in Ukraine. We’ve heard all the time before: you have to live by the rules. By what rules? Well, what kind of rule is this when three states, France, Germany, and Poland, came to Kyiv and, as guarantors, signed a paper of agreements between the opposition and the authorities led by President (Viktor) Yanukovich. A few days later, the opposition launched a coup. And no one even sneezed, as if nothing had happened.

“And then we hear: we have to live by the rules. What are the rules? What are you thinking of? Do you write rules for others, but you’re not going to follow anything yourself? Well, who’s going to live like this? That’s where the crisis started. But not because Russia acted from a position of strength.

“Our Western partners have always acted, at least from a position of strength, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because the world order after World War Two was based on a balance of power between the victors. And now one of the winners is gone – the Soviet Union has collapsed. Well, the Westerners began to rewrite these rules for themselves. What are the rules?

ON WHETHER HE HAD MADE MISTAKES IN HIS TIME IN POWER:

“Let him who is without sin cast the first the stone. Let’s leave it at that.”

ON MEETING UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKIY:

“We are ready to meet, as I said, by the way, I am ready to meet with everyone, including Zelenskiy. Yes, that’s not the question.

“If the Ukrainian state trusts someone to negotiate, for God’s sake, let it be Zelenskiy. That’s not the question. The question is who will sign the documents… When dealing with serious issues, it is important for us not to have a propaganda component, but a legal one.”

“But the point must be made, the signature must be from the legitimate authorities, otherwise, you know, the next one will come and throw it all in the bin. But you can’t do that either, we’re dealing with serious issues. That’s why I’m not giving up on this, but a lot of work needs to be done.”

ON SPEAKING TO GERMANY’S MERZ:

“If the Federal Chancellor wants to call and talk, I have already said this many times – we do not refuse any contacts. And we are always open to this… At some point, when our European partners decided to inflict a strategic defeat on us on the battlefield, they themselves stopped these contacts. They stopped, let them resume. We are open to them.

“I do doubt if Germany can contribute more than the United States as a mediator in our negotiations with Ukraine. A mediator must be neutral. And when we see German tanks and Leopard (battle tanks) on the battlefield, and now we are looking at the fact that the Federal Republic is considering supplying Taurus (missiles) for attacks on Russian territory using not only the equipment itself, but also using Bundeswehr officers… Here, of course, big questions arise. It is well known that if this happens, it will not affect the course of hostilities, that is excluded. But it will spoil our relationship completely.

“Therefore, today we consider the Federal Republic, just like many other European countries, not a neutral state, but as a party supporting Ukraine, and in some cases, perhaps, as accomplices in these hostilities. Nevertheless, if we are talking about a desire to talk about this topic, to present some ideas on this subject, I repeat once again, we are always ready for this.”